Imagine you're playing a game where you have to pick the right card out of a 100 to win a prize. Sounds tough, but still possible, right? Now think about if that game was a lot harder, like having to pick the right card out of a billion. Now that sounds impossible. Well, this game illustrates how the Nobel laureate Roger Penrose views the universe's precision. He suggests that the Universe began with conditions so exact, it's like picking the right number out of an unimaginably large pool. Quantified as one part in 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power. This part alone means that we need 123 zeros to write this. So, this whole part will have 10 to the 123rd zeros. That's insanely small. Some might see this precision as a sign of intelligent design, but many scientists dive deeper, exploring ideas like multiverse, parallel universes, or even cyclic universes. This concept suggests our universe might just be one of many that undergo endless cycles of rebirth. But that is not the whole story. This future, it becomes the Big Bang of the next Eon. The evidence for it is really quite strong: 99.980% confidence level. And so, how can the future of an expanding Universe be equivalent to the Big Bang? Back in the early 1950s, a fascinating cosmological theory was in the ascendant. It was known as the steady state model. This model suggested that the Universe had always existed without a beginning and remained essentially unchanged over time and for all time. It proposed a universe expanding yet constantly replenishing itself with new material, specifically in the form of an extremely diffuse hydrogen gas, to compensate for the expansion. However, just a decade later, it was proven that the theory had not stood the test of time. Physicists Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered that all-pervading electromagnetic radiation was coming in from all directions. This radiation, now referred to as the cosmic microwave background radiation or CMB, indicated the universe had a beginning: a flash from what is now known as The Big Bang. Fast forward to today, cosmologists are still embarking on a journey to unravel the mysteries of the universe's origins. One theory that stands at the moment is the initial inflationary epoch of current cosmology. It proposes a period of rapid expansion shortly after the universe's birth. This theory, among other conflicting theories, seeks to explain the vast, complex cosmos we observe today. Supernova, exploding stars, showed that the universe is actually undergoing this exponential expansion. It seems to be a feature of this term that Einstein introduced into his cosmology for the wrong reason. But one puzzling question that has been on top of many scientists today is: Did the universe actually have a beginning? For a long time, the prevailing thought wasn't about how the universe began, but whether the belief that it always existed. You see, our ancestors looked up at the night sky and saw a constant: a universe that was eternal and unchanging. They conceived ideas of cycles of creations and destructions that reset the cosmic clock. Even Einstein initially believed that the Universe was static, but in his own mathematical equations from the theory of general relativity, it suggested that the cosmos might actually be expanding, which is not something he was hoping for. He introduced something known as the cosmological constant, symbolized as Lambda. Einstein considered this as the biggest blunder of his career, since the Lambda value isn't equal to zero. But fast forward to today, we know that even his biggest blunder was, in fact, correct in predicting an expanding Universe. Thanks to the groundbreaking discovery made by Edwin Hubble. The current view is that the Universe began with what's called the Big Bang. Immediately following that was a stage of inflation, which was an exponential expansion. What we see is that this pattern of exponential expansion is expected to continue indefinitely. And so, turning the clock back to the universe's inception, right after the Big Bang, cosmologists have uncovered evidence of a similar explosive expansion. Particle physicist by the name of Gabriele Veneziano proposed an intriguing idea: What if the inflationary phase didn't occur after the Big Bang but before it? In his short paper entitled "Introduction to Pre-Big Bang Cosmology," he postulated that at some remote time, much before the Big Bang, the universe was not particularly homogeneous, and that the inflation was natural, thanks to the duality symmetries of string cosmology. This idea is a game-changer. It opens up a new start to how we see the universe's story, way beyond that first cosmic flash. However, Roger Penrose had a different viewpoint on this matter. The view I'm taking is that what we regard as the current picture of the universe —without inflation, expansion, and then the accelerated expansion— is just one Eon, which is one of a succession of such eons. So, what exactly is an eon, according to Penrose's viewpoint of the inflation theory? Let's break this down further. In the concept of conformal cyclic cosmology model, Penrose envisions the cosmos not as a one-time singular event but as a series of epochs, each referred to as an eon. Yes, you heard that right: according to this, our universe is just one chapter in an endless cosmic cycle. So, in this concept, our current Eon began with the Big Bang. In this case, there's no need for the inflation theory in the traditional sense; instead, the universe simply expanded from the Big Bang, eventually entering a phase of exponential expansion that goes on forever. And that's what Penrose defines as one Eon. But here's where it gets more mind-bending: Penrose proposes that before our Eon, there was another one, and the exponential expansion in that remote future of the previous Eon appears to us as the inflation at the start of our Eon, not after the Big Bang but a prelude to our Big Bang. This really flips the script on traditional concepts. It suggests that what we perceive as the aftermath of the Big Bang could actually be the remnants of a universe that existed before ours. Our Big Bang was the result of the remote future of an eon prior to ours. Now that's a crazy idea, but this idea is crazy and often, we find that ideas that seem crazy turn out actually to be right. So, the hope here is that this crazy idea does turn out to be right. So, what's particularly crazy about this idea? It's the notion that each Eon begins hot and densely packed, expands, cools, and then enters a phase of exponential expansion, eventually becoming extremely cold. This cycle happens over a duration that is almost impossible for the human mind to grasp. You see, this will happen in time frames spanning googol years. That's one followed by 100 zeros. At this point, it's just like trying to imagine infinity. In Penrose's CCC model, he suggests that each cycle of an eon, from start to finish and then starting over again, lasts for a googol years. Then, after another googol years, another one will come about, so on and so forth. And in such a vast expanse of time, the main actors will be only the photons, the particles of light. And what do photons do? They don't get bored because photons get right out to infinity without experiencing any time. Infinity is just like another place. So, it means that the remote future of our expanding universe becomes the Big Bang of the next Eon, and our Big Bang was the result of the remote future of an eon prior to ours. And so, how does all of this crazy idea stack up to today's topic? This accelerated expansion Interestingly, it hints at a cycle much grander than we previously imagined. It suggests that the far future of our universe, in its endlessly expanding state, might physically resemble the conditions of another Big Bang. And so, the so-called our Big Bang could be seen as the continuation of a previous Eon that had also expanded exponentially. Quoting Roger's word from his 2005 paper on this CCC model, he stated that the conformal infinity of each Eon joins conformally smoothly to the conformally expanded Big Bang origin of the subsequent Eon. Why was that structure there? Well, if there was nothing before it, it's hard to answer that question. Here we say, yes, they had that structure at that Big Bang because the Eon had the structure it had. Of course, it's an endless chain which goes on forever, but nevertheless, you can sort of at each stage answer that question. The narrative presented by CCC naturally prompts us to contemplate the implications of a cyclical cosmos. Within this framework, Penrose introduces another intriguing element of the cosmic puzzle: Dark Matter, composed of hypothetical particles. Penrose coined the term Erebons to describe them. This term draws inspiration from the Greek mythology figure Erebus. Erebus was the god of darkness, symbolizing deep darkness or shadow. It personifies the impenetrable darkness before the universe's creation, which is parallel to the mysterious nature of these Erebons. The theoretical particles in Penrose's argument, these hypothetical particles could explain Dark Matter's gravitational effects without invoking other forms of unknown matter or energy. Their gradual decay and the release of energy in the form of gravitational waves could significantly influence the universe's structure, especially at the end of an eon. This decay process is pivotal for CCC's explanation of the universe's low entropy state at the Big Bang. You see, the transition from a highly entropic universe, replete with black holes and remnants of past eons, to a low entropy state required for the Big Bang to start a new Eon, all of this could be mediated by the actions of erebons. Overall, this mechanism would ensure that each new Eon starts from a state of low entropy, which sets the stage for the universe's formation of galaxies, stars, and planets as we know them. So, this is the key part of the argument. The squashing and stretching is physically sensible, and many of my colleagues in cosmology, I may say, have a lot of trouble swallowing it, and I'm hoping since you're not most of you cosmologists, you probably have an easier time to swallow it than they do. CCC suggests that the low entropy of the Big Bang wasn't randomly selected, but was instead forced into a low state by conformal transformations, removing the gravitational degrees of freedom of the previous eon. In order to demonstrate how unlikely it was that the entropy was chosen at random, Roger Penrose in his book "The Emperor's New Mind" stated that this now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 10 to the 10th to the 120th power. But then he clarifies his stance by distancing the concept from any theological implication. He said in an interview, "I don't think that helps much a being in the sense of a conscious being, something that the word God has applied to, is not the view which I hold to. I like to draw these pictures and I'm amused when people pick it up and try to say I'm claiming that there's a Creator out there. That's not my view at all. " Doesn't that sound more like an intriguing paradox?" On one hand, he describes the universe's initial conditions with precisions that suggest a Creator's aim, which then highlighted the astronomical improbability of such precisions arising by chance. But on the other hand, he stopped short of attributing these conditions to an intelligent originator. And if you recall, Penrose also employs theological terminology in the erebons particle store, yet at the same time, he maintains a purely scientific stance on Cosmic Origins. Here lies a juxtaposition that seems almost contradictory. How could a scientist choose one over the other? Science delusion is the belief that science already understands the nature of reality in principle, leaving only the details to be filled in. It's the kind of belief system of people who say "I don't believe in God, I believe in science," and unfortunately, the world view aspect of science has come to inhibit and constrict the free inquiry, which is the very lifeblood of the scientific endeavor. Although in the latter part of his discussion, Penrose delves into a fascinating reasoning on why the Big Bang was so exquisitely organized rather than chaotic. He suggests that it is due to the behavior of a specific aspect known as the while curvature. In simple terms, it focuses on how SpaceTime curvature behaves at singularities. Penrose points out that there seems to be a natural constraint where the curvature equals zero at these singular points. And so, it suggests that there's a fundamental aspect of the universe that limits the choices available at the moment of creation, confining them to a very specific orderly set of conditions. He argues that the Big Bang's apparent order happens without invoking a Creator's direct influence. So, that gives you some idea of how vast that phase space is, in relation to the tiny region that the Universe had to start off from. Focusing on the fine-tuning aspect of the universe, specifically dark energy density, Roger Penrose suggests that for life to exist, the conditions had to be exceptionally precise. According to him, an advanced being might have set the dark energy density perfectly to allow life to emerge. If this density were significantly higher, the universe could have been torn apart. Or, if it's only slightly lower, the universe could collapse into a singularity long before any form of life had the opportunity to develop. A similar paper was published in 1987 by physicist Steven Weinberg on this topic. The paper might sound a bit complex, but let's break it down in a way that's easy to understand. Imagine playing a game of dice, but not just any game. This one's about the existence of everything around us, including ourselves. Weinberg connected the dots between the universe's surprisingly low level of dark energy and something called the anthropic principle. This principle suggests a thought-provoking idea: we can only discuss and observe the universes that have the exact conditions needed for us to exist. It's like saying, out of countless rolls, the universe got that one in a gazillion chance right, to create life as we know it. If it hadn't, we wouldn't be here to talk about it. Weinberg didn't stop there and went even further. He proposed that there's a certain level of dark energy necessary for life to exist, and it's closely related to the energy level needed for galaxies to form. It's as if, once the stage was set for galaxies, the conditions became ripe for life to emerge, which links their creation and the possibility of life more closely than we ever imagined. Now here's where it gets even more interesting. This connection between life and dark energy density is surprisingly strong, but, and it's a big but, just because we're here to observe this universe doesn't mean our existence was a guaranteed outcome. It's a bit like winning the cosmic lottery. The chances of the universe having just the right amount of dark energy for life to exist are incredibly slim. There has to be some sort of causal connection between the universes. If all those other universes are just causally disconnected from our own, then nothing that happens in those other universes affects anything that happens in this universe, including whatever events were responsible for setting up the fine-tuning in the first place. When we talk about the precision of the conditions needed to create the universe, if we say one part in 10 to the 10th to the 123rd, it reflects the precision on the phase space volume v over w equals this number. It was Roger's fancy way of saying the different possible states the universe could have taken at its inception. Well, this precision is so specific that even if you try to write it out in full by putting a zero on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the whole universe, you wouldn't come close to the total, not even close. That many zeros, I certainly couldn't get onto the page. I couldn't even fit them into the universe if I put one zero on every single proton within the observable universe. That's not nearly enough. Some might say that each step in the formation of the universe could be chalked up to mere coincidence, but is it reasonable to attribute everything to chance, especially when considering the precision observed around us? Take, for example, the concept of intelligence, and that includes the overly rated artificial intelligence. Observations tell us that intelligence typically originates from an existing intelligence. So when we see the intricate design and order in the universe, it's natural to question whether it all could really be the result of random events. When we start to consider the sheer number of coincidences necessary for life to exist, this whole galactic timeframe suddenly appears quite short. Can we truly believe that all these factors aligned perfectly by chance in what is, cosmologically speaking, a relatively brief period? There is a Transcendent Creator beyond the universe who brought the physical universe into existence, and I think the scientific evidence is pointing in that direction fairly strongly, in part because we now have evidence, multiple lines of evidence suggesting that the material universe does not look to have been eternal and self-existent. To illustrate this further, imagine you're building a house. You gather all the materials, wood, nails, glass, and enlist scientists to explain every step of the construction process, from the physics of the structure to the chemistry of the materials. Even with a complete scientific explanation of how the house was built, it doesn't negate the fact that there was an architect behind its design. Understanding the scientific mechanisms that led to the formation of the universe and life within it doesn't eliminate the possibility of an underlying cause or intelligence. After all, what scientists are striving to achieve is to unravel the deepest mysteries of the universe. Physicist Richard Feynman once noted that discovering the laws of physics is like trying to learn the laws of chess merely by observing chess games. You might observe that bishops remain on squares of the same color, deducing this as a fundamental rule, but a deeper understanding reveals that bishops actually move diagonally, which in turn explains why they always stay on the same color. This evolution of understanding from a simple observation to a more profound insight mirrors the journey of discovering physics. Discovering the concept of an expanding universe after Newton and Einstein wanting a static universe is a similar type of revelation. Another example is realizing that chess pieces maintain their identity, but consider a pawn reaches the opposite end of the board and finally transforms into a queen. Of course, it does not violate the laws of chess; you just had never seen a game pushed to that extreme before. The same thing with cosmology: that the notion of a big bang as the universe's beginning was a foundational belief, but as we push the boundaries of our understanding, we encounter theories that challenge conventional wisdom. The idea that space and time could have existed beforehand, and that these ideas may violate common sense, makes them perplexing. For now, the concept where the cosmos undergoes an endless cycle of birth, death, and rebirth may seem outlandish, yet learning about these ideas opens up new pathways to understanding our view of the cosmos.
